Rating: 
Summary: Comparison Opinions?
Review: Question: How can you give a movie a decent review by just comparing it to another movie?Answer: You can't. If one decides to have an opinion on a movie, one must try to keep that within the context of the movie. If you're telling me that a movie isn't good just because you have already seen something better than we should shut down all of Hollywood! Sure, there's a lot of schlock out there. Always was, but that didn't stop people from creating some of the masterpieces that some seem to think dictate the merits of all later films. I won't compare 2010 to 2001. It's a sequel! Different directors, different writers (Clarke was, of course, both) and a different time (the knowledge acquired since 1968 changed the story). 2010 holds up very well, my only vice is that it regressed into using sound effects in outer space. I'm sick of these Hollywood types who feel they need to 'hype' the scenes of a sci-fi movie. ISNOCHYS (i.e. in space no one can hear you scream) p.s. With 2001 almost here the story sadly reveals the state of affairs of today's human race. I estimate that it won't be until around 2100 that we will even have the start of a lunar base.
Rating: 
Summary: What widescreen was that?
Review: First of all, this is a thoroughly enjoyable movie--I would certainly give it 4 stars. However, despite the fact that the DVD is labeled as "Anamorphic" *and* the box says "Enhanced for Widescreen", the DVD I received (the October 2000 release) is a rather poor letter-box transfer with a lot of noticeable artifacts. Overall, a very poor showing. Given the extremely poor DVD transfer on 2001, it is a shame that 2001 and 2010 are now the two worst quality DVDs in my collection. Grrrr.
Rating:
Summary: Warning - please read before you purchase this title.
Review: This new re-released version of 2010 is NOT anamorphic. A friend of mine recently received this "anamorphic" [title] and found out it is not anamorphic at all.
Rating: 
Summary: An entertaining, though flawed journey
Review: I will compare 2010: the Year We Make Contact not with its predecessor but rather with this year's Mission to Mars because it has a lot more in common with that film. I would like to say that though I 2010 is fairly enjoyable, I prefer De Palma's film over Hyam's for a few reasons. 1. There is the musical score, which may be the biggest difference. Ennio Morricone's score for Mission to Mars is absolutey beautiful and mesmerizing, one of the best I've heard in a long time. David Shire's score in 2010 is obtrusive and at times, feels more like something you would hear in a darker, more sinister film, which interferes with the tone. 2. Brian De Palma is actually a more gifted director than Peter Hyams. I'm not knocking Hyams ability to direct, it's just that he needs to learn not to rush the plot as he does with this film. The pace in 2010 also fluctuates between energetic and sluggish. Pacing in M2M is perfect, with lots of suspense and wonderous moments. 3. Both casts are extremely talented. Mission to Mars features Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Connie Nielsen, and Jerry O'Connell. 2010 has Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, and Bob Balaban. But to be honest, the cast of M2M has a more natural feeling rapport. In 2010, Mirren is initially passive to Scheider and Balaban's character is too flat and unemotional. 4. This may be an unfair comparison, but both films feature a spacewalk sequence, and De Palma's is far better (and also far longer). Still, 2010 is entertaining, and Hyams's script is intelligent with the occasional sharp eye for dialogue and some character development. Roy Scheider delivers a superb performance and Richard Edlund's special effects are ahead for its time. Worth watching, especially back to back with De Palma's Mission to Mars.
Rating: 
Summary: 2010
Review: People who go into watching this film expecting another 2001, will not be disappointed, but surprised. It is a completely different style of film, science fiction yes, but everything else is different. This film is dialogue reliant, instead of being like 2001 and having the first 20 minutes of the film dead silent. 2010 is not so much inferior to 2001, it's just different. It is an excellent movie. This movie closely follows the novel by Arthur C. Clarke. That means that it is a great science fiction film, full of suspense and great acting. However, it answers some questions (in Hyams view anyway) that Kubrick deliberately left unanswered in 2001, so if you're a purist don't watch it. But you'll be missing out. Things to watch for: Arthur C. Clarke on a park bench in the Washington D.C. scene near the start of the film. Clarke and Kubrick on a Time magazine cover in the hospital (was that a real issue)?
Rating:
Summary: The difference between Cinema and Theater
Review: The other reviews of this film do a great job of describing how fantastic it is. But there's an important distinction between 2001 and 2010 that may help you understand why so many people like it, in spite of it being actually contradictory in filmmaking ethos to 2001. 2001 was one of the greatest examples of what cinema (movies as art) could do. It was abstract, compelling, engrossing and confrontational. It changed the way you thought for a little while, and changed what many people thought movies could do, forever. 2010 isn't cinema at all, it's a *play*. Everything compelling about this, except perhaps the special effects (which, while awesome, are tellingly static) happens between two people, through dialog. Two people sit on a park bench and decide the fate of the Discovery. Two people argue on the bridge of a soviet spaceship about the Monolith. Two people stand in the middle of the high desert of California and trade cold-war secrets about an alien encounter. And it's all *awesome*! Some of the best dialog and acting wev'e seen in science-fiction. I can prove, using algebra, that if you watch the first 10 minutes of this movie, you'll watch the whole thing.
Rating:
Summary: The Monolith Returns...
Review: Director/Writer/Cinematographer (he wore all three hats on this film!) Peter Hyams continues the story of the mysterious monolith as a joint U.S.-Russian crew speeds toward the derelict spaceship Discovery and earth's destiny. Set against a backdrop of Soviet/US Central American tensions--quite tangible back in 1984, when this film hit screens--"2010" manages to rise above the cold war polemic to offer a new hope. Hyams' film manages to balance Star Wars-type action (Lucas's, not Reagan's) with the intellectual and moral implications first posed in Stanley Kubrick's "2001." An excellent cast is led by Roy Scheider and Helen Mirren, with Keir Dullea returning as Dave Bowman. This film is thrilling, frightening, touching, and even humorous. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Competent and enjoyable but no follow-up to 2001
Review: Follow-up to "2001" isn't even in the same ballpark as that movie. Heywood Floyd and a Russian/American crew head for Jupiter to learn the fate of Discovery and HAL. Consistently well-made and watchable, but never transcendent, and when David Bowman reappears, the film borders on the cringe-inducing. All sets were rebuilt from photos since Kubrick had the originals destroyed.
Rating:
Summary: Not as great, But still a impressive film!
Review: As most people would say, 2010 isn't 2001. Well it's true. But you shouldn't condemn 2010 for not being the marvelous film that Kubrick made, but praise it as one of the most exciting Sci-fi films ever.
The special effects are as amazing as I'm sure they were back in 1984. And the story line is well thought out. Not only do the astronauts have to deal with personal problems, but they are faced with the ongoing battle between their two countries. All this, and the answers to the mysteries of the universe. A must see!
Rating:
Summary: 2010; A Worthy Sequal.
Review: 2010 was a more realistic movie then 2001, as data from the Jupiter probes were used to give us a realistic apperance of the planet and it's system of moons. The movie takes place nine years later with American and Russian scientists on a mission to uncover the fate of the USS Discovery, Dave Bowman, and HAL. The mystery of what the Monolith really is gets even more mysterious then ever, but that only makes the movie all the more interesting to watch. Written and Directed by Peter Hyams.Based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke.Music by David Shire.Visual Effects by Richard Edlund.
| 
